speaker focusing on the number of refugees because they are growing. the 20,000 from iraq into syria under the government since 2009, the record of that is without comparison among many of our allies so what we would like to see is the liberal party of candidates to focus on the future with other canadians with a vast majority who understands. that military action is there to protect millions of refugees. [applause] spec now we take you live to the cato institute in washington, d.c. for a discussion of presidential authority in combating isis. >> in the discussion of the wisdom of the airstrikes against isis but we are not the only ones to do so.

while the president of the united states unilaterally decided to bomb ices targets at a time when congress was out of session and the parliament of the united kingdom debated and authorized the airstrikes which makes one wonder which country has a monarch and which country considers itself to be a constitutional republic. the united kingdom is in the only country to do this even though the turkish parliament debated the united states. james madison said that no part of the constitution is more found in the clause that confides to the question of war and peace to the legislature and not to the executive department. with that in mind, we will hear from gene healy on the constitutional concerns regarding the presidents actions or even if the congress the data and authorized the airstrikes would such action be in the national interest and what the public support yet another war in the middle east or is there a clearly defined mission lacks

creswell explore those questions in depth and before i turned turn over to the speakers i will introduce. first the cato institute and whose research interests include the role of the presidency presidency of the list is the most was made over criminalization in the day dangerous devotion to the executive power. he's a columnist for the washington examiner and he holds a ba from georgetown university and a jd from the university of chicago law school. from the studies at the cato institute is the author of several books including the power problem somehow american military dominance makes us less safe and less free. he's also the lead he is also the lead author of exiting iraq, u.s. must renew the war against al qaeda. before joining cato cato into february of 2003, he taught history at the state university

in temple university in his commission in the u.s. navy and holds a phd in temple university. with that i will turn it over to jean. >> thank you, john and all of you for being here in the division of labor this morning. i'm going to talk about whether the president is doing is legal and chris is going to talk about whether it is a good idea. my task is easier. first of all, what are we doing? since early august the president has launched a couple hundred airstrikes on either side of the border most of them against the ices targets although two weeks ago he threw 47,000 missiles at the heretofore unknown group in serious which we are told threatens to bring down u.s. passenger planes by setting off explosives blows. what are we calling what we are

doing? the bombing has gotten a little ahead of the branding and at this point we are going by the placeholder designation operations in iraq and serious. as "the wall street journal" reported last week we are actually running out of cool names for the operations we launch. we thought about operation infinite resolve apparently, that we dropped that and as you can see the journal is running a contest for the name that military operation has tagged operation name. if any of you have good ideas go on to bigger for that. what is the legal basis for this to be named later packs debate co the president said i have the authority to carry out this what

do you call it. aware that authority was supposed to come from was anything but clear and it seemed reasonable to the administration itself after several weeks of the various fits and starts and trial balloons but two weeks later we got an official statement from the president in the form of a notification under the war powers resolution on september 23. he mentioned several potential sources of authority and i think that we can group them into three separate rationales. the commander-in-chief and the chief executive, constitutional rationale then he mentions the two sources of potential domestic statutory authority, public law, 107243, that's the iraq war resolution and the

10740. the authorization for the use of military force that the congress passed three days after 9/11 to authorize the impending war in afghanistan and an ongoing war with al qaeda. let's look at all three. starting with the commander-in-chief and the chief executive. the commander-in-chief clause is not a particularly fruitful source of authority for launching the military operation as hamilton put it in federalist 69 this means no more than the president will be the first general and admiral of america's military forces and the generals and admirals have an important role that they do not in general get to decide whether and with whom we go to the war. as far as the chief executive goes, this was the article one

section one executive power shall be vested in the president of the united states of america. this is the source of authority for what you might call the strong unitarians like john yoo the legal architect of the bush administration war on terror presidency. they counter that out of the numbers and animations of article two, section one. one problem is that virtually nobody in the founding era seems to have understood the executive power in that way. you go to the architect itself in the presidential chains will send the name that has the constitutional convention answered and introduced the notion that the executive should consist of one person. and he said at that point that the executive power is the power to execute the law. when it came to declaring the

war, wilson said at the ratifying conventions the system will not carry us into the war is characterized against it and will not be in the power of the single man too involved in such distress because the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large. and they are consistent on this point even alexander hamilton is a series of pamphlets in early debates between hamilton and madison over washington's neutrality proclamation of 1793 and hamilton writing as a specific set as it is the province and of the duty to preserve to the nation the blessings of peace, the legislature allowed can enter up to them interrupt them by placing the nation in a state of war. madison for his part, i think

john reference to this quote before there is no part of the constitution that has more wisdom to be found in the declared for clause. he continues that were it otherwise, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man. so nobody thought that the president has the inherent constitutional power to launch the war as well. but to be fair the obama administration hasn't placed a great deal of emphasis on the broad a series of presidential power in order to justify this as the war. it's for bad people like dick cheney and john yoo. they seem to try to shy away from that sort of thing so they have embarked on the somewhat desperate search for legal cover outside of article two of their authorization for the use of military force passed by other congresses for other wars.

who needs john yoo and you can get what you want by torturing the decade-old authorizations for the war in the past. in the obama theory of the constitutional war powers, congress gets a vote that it is one vote, one congress, one vote, one time. maybe two times. [applause] the president identifies two possible sources of statutory authority over a decade old and a different the different congresses and one of those is the iraq war resolution passed in 2002 to authorize the president to disarm saddam hussein and enforce the various security council resolutions. interestingly the blast from the past obama isn't the first president to argue that old au ms never dies. as it happens the bush

administration tried a similar trick in the run-up to the iraq war ten years ago. this article from the "washington post" in august of 2002 the lawyers for president bush included that he launch an attack with a new authorizations into permission remains enforced in the 1991 resolution giving bush's father of a authority to wage war in the persian gulf. they chopped the argument after about a week and a half and sought congressional authorization. 12 years later here is the obama administration arguing that the resolution that gave the gulf war still has enough life left in it to support the gulf war free. what's wrong with this argument? we start with the title of authorization for the use of the military force against iraq resolution of 2002 and you can

look at the language. you don't have to deal with the preamble all of which deal with saddam hussein and the various offenses of the weapons of mass destruction. you can just look at the operative clause that empowers the president to use the armed forces as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the united states against the continuing threat posed by iraq. it doesn't read like a delegation in perpetuity allowing future presidents to wage war against any potential threat emerging from the geographical region loosely defined. therefore with isis is a war in iraq and syria and it isn't against iraq or the continuing threat posed by iraq.

the government of iraq as part is part of our coalition of the willingness here. so, this argument is what's more on july 25, 2 weeks before the president started the bombing of targets in iraq, president above the five abbas the five national security adviser told the speaker that the iraq aumf is no longer used for any activity and could safely be rescinded. on september 12, a month into the bombing we got a statement from an unnamed senior administration official arguing that the 2002 would serve as an alternative statutory authority basis on which the president may rely on military action in iraq. even so our position on the 2002

hasn't changed and we would like to see it repealed. on to the rationale three. the administration seems to have settled for its primary source of legal cover on the 2001 aumf. one problem with that rationale to justify the war against isis is the core al qaeda has publicly denounced and excommunicated isis. our unnamed senior administration worker has the workaround for that as well because of the group's long-standing relationship with al qaeda and its position supported by some individual members and factions of the aligned groups that it is the true integrator of osama bin

laden's legacy isa is the argument goes that within despite the public split between al qaeda's senior leadership and isis. that is some time ago they used to be friends and many in the community think that isis is hot stuff. it's hard to see what any of this has to do with the actual language. isis certainly wasn't around for the attacks and it's difficult to see how they are harboring the organization that excommunicated them. are they supposed to be the so-called associated force of the group that refuses to associate with men or is the administration legal theory that the torch has been passed to a

new generation and isis is the proper successor to al qaeda. it doesn't matter as far as the administration sees that they are covered. all of which i think leads us to a larger problem as something that is long past time that congress grappled with. now, obama it is true is hardly the last president to wage the war without congressional authorization. but for double the 20th century, the presidential war is geographically limited in scope. they were often these detour operations short and sharp departures from the peacetime norm. in the 21st century, we have arrived at the new normal of the war without temporal geographical or legal limit. in other words as the default

setting. the pentagon envisioned the board that would go on for at least ten or 20 more years under the aumf. it's possible than the aumf will serve as a basis for president chelsea clinton in 2033. the droning will continue into the morality improves. from the public effect sector with a subdivision of the public fact he evaluated the reporters claim that obama bombed more countries than george w. bush. but they couldn't settle on the precise number in the report that concluded the sentence that both presidents may have bombed the philippines. we can't be sure because under the aumf both have interpreted

the aumf, the associated forces under the aumf about qaeda and these splinter groups actions that we are at war with our classified information. it's information on who's on the associated forces list has been refused to congress in open session. this is the war on a need to know basis and we don't need to know. president obama gave a very kind very strange speech about this, kind of a disoriented speech back in may of 2013 at the national defense university. he quoted james madison's warning that no nation could survive in the midst of continual warfare and he added a warning of his own that the perpetual war with proved self-defeating and author the country in troubling ways. he welcomed this debate with

himself. when you look at how far we have drifted from the vision the framers had in the constitutional allocation of the war power and the system that wouldn't hurry us into the war and that was calculated against it you begin to think that it would be nice to have a real debate perhaps in congress itself. thank you. [applause] >> thanks everyone for coming out today. standing room only just like in the playoff game and thinks as lace to the conference staff and i also want to give a shout out to my interns who really helped

presentation but i do what i can with their help. so, in anticipation hope is a better term but the congress will fulfill its obligation and actually debate the war that we are fighting today in iraq and syria. i was thinking about some questions are considerations that might come up in the course of that debate and not very originally i went back to one of my favorite documents in the cold war era in 1984 nearly 30 years ago in november of 84 the national press club here in washington caspar weinberger who was the president's secretary of defense outlined six tests to be considered weighing the use of the combat forces abroad.

in the disastrous mission in lebanon and the bombing of the marine barracks in beirut but it also was after the attack on grenada so there were two cases they had in mind and these are the words of choice created these aren't a question whether the united states would use force when our vital national security interests were at risk but more ambiguous cases. and it's a fascinating document. i went back to the use of military force and you can find it easy enough on the internet. i'm not going to read all of the different passages. i will just highlight a few. the emphasis is in the original. this is a focus on combat troops. the first is the vital interests interest of our ally that is a critical consideration. we should commit to the mission wholeheartedly as a country that seems fairly reasonable, fairly obvious. again this is one of the

outgrowths of the conflict. another point is we should have clearly defined political and military objectives that we should continually reassess our objectives and the forces that we have committed to achieve them and we have the support of the public and the congress. and the last point i would emphasize that it bears repeating we don't commit u.s. forces to combat unless accepting the last resort and again this is one of the great benefits that we have that other countries don't have that we have this extraordinary security that we sometimes take for granted and so we have the luxury of choice that other countries don't have. so, in these ideas the concepts

have persisted through the years after the end of the cold war and it turns out that we now know that the military aide at the time was colin powell. he played a key word in drafting the speech in 1984 and then the general himself articulated a similar set of rules when he was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff into so these criteria loosely our criteria referred to as the power doctrine a few years ago the power problem that john mentioned i came up with my own list and i follow from the power doctrine and i just want to leave those out for you briefly. again you will see the parallels between the four of them that i laid out. i had four and he had six but there are some similarities. i do think that there should be a compelling interest in security interests at stake today i think there should be strong public support and i think that strong public support should be manifest in the

congressional debate in the congressional authorization at least the declaration of the war in rather old-fashioned concept but it's still out on the books after all. the mission should be defined. we kind of understand what we are trying to achieve and whether or not we can achieve it and again the last resort argument. i've used these in the past and i say if you don't like the criteria and you think they are too stringent that fine but somewhere along the line we should assess whether or not to go into the war is a good idea in the first place and for setting up some kind of criteria makes sense. so the question is how does the current ongoing mission in iraq and serious measure up against these criteria. the first is the compelling national security interest and here i think you can see to sort

of approach is. on the one hand as senator dianne feinstein wrote an op-ed in usa today and really focused on the isis shared brutality, their barbarism and made a few comments about about their relative the relative effectiveness in seizing territory in iraq and syria and therefore the implication was that this group posed a clear and compelling threat to the u.s. national security interest. on the other hand, the secretary johnson from the dhs really focused on what information the intelligence community had about both their intentions to attack the united states directly and also to the capability to do so. and there are a number of other quotes that i could show but i just picked to. the point being that i think is

that isis posed some threat to the united states, some security threat, but not a particularly great one and certainly not an existential threat. i think we've gotten away from that sort of language or i certainly hope so. so it is a debatable point. is there a clear compelling u.s. national security interest at stake while, we can debate that. the second point is public support. well it depends. the first thing to note is that nearly three out of every four americans favor airstrikes against isis. again the question is worded this is one of the recent questions from the end of last month. there are other questions but the point is there is an on process on both iraq and on syria and job reference to john reference to the debate of course the debate that has gone on in other countries has really

tried to differentiate between attacking targets in iraq and attacking targets in serious. we can talk about why that is in the q-and-a. but the way that this question was asked to sample the american people, it explains that this is not just a tax in iraq and syria. so three out of every four americans favor airstrikes. but six out of ten oppose the use of u.s. ground troops in iraq and syria. it's not really so surprising. call it what you will. there are memories of the war in afghanistan especially in iraq. it's not so surprising the american people are not particularly enthusiastic about another major ground war in iraq or the new or additional ground war in serious. the one in afghanistan is obviously still going on. so, this is where the public is

on this question about what we are doing and how we got about can without doing it. and so the question is whether the air only campaign can accomplish what president obama set out to do. so this is the next question it's a very clearly defined mission. well, in his speech on september 10, he suggested that the air only campaign could both degrade and ultimately destroy isil. he said that there was a counterterrorism strategy that he also said command that's about as much attention in the media as anything else in the speech we will not get dragged into another ground war in iraq. so the president's statement to the american public was he thought we could degrade and ultimately destroy isil isil and of course the but of course the assistance of the forces on the

ground. it turns out not so fast the "washington post" is reporting that retired marine general allen who was president obama's special envoy to coordinate the agency to deal with that process effort against the islamic state general allen has directed that everyone should stop using the word destroy when describing the mission. he said the word was to imprecise. degraded is better. the post as an aside also said it is impossible to do this, but anyway, the president has said he strongly and they said it lets not use that word so there is some debate even within the administration. among the senior military officers there is also some debate, disagreement not per se with the president that kind of clarifying what this mission is likely to look at and who is

likely to carry it out. i will paraphrase a little bit with general dempsey and the chairman and chief if the coalition that has been assembled on the ground to where the airstrikes are assisting the coalition on the ground of the coalition fails and there are threats to the united states we would go back and make the resignation that include the use of ground forces and general odierno the army chief of staff he emphasized you have to have ground forces capable of going in and routing them out but it's very clear in the context of the remarks and to what else has been said that he wasn't talking about u.s. ground forces but he was placing quite placing quite a bit of emphasis as general dempsey had on the ground forces there, the forces in the region. ..

>> ambassador john bolton on the 1d most recently senator graham today in the "wall street journal" with senator mccain again making the case that this mission cannot be done from the air, and this is a quick quote from that article which, again, i just read a few hours ago: mr. obama's political goal -- this is what senators mccain and graham say -- this goal will require the u.s. to militarily

degrade the assad regime, upgrade the moderate opposition, change the momentum of the conflict and create conditions for political solution and the clear implication from this is that means a much more, a much heavier u.s. presence than what is currently under consideration. and, again, this is a debatable point. others aren't so sure. i refer you to walter pincus' column which comes to a different conclusion. so this is, again, a debatable point, one worth debating. the last one is, is this a last resort? that gets a little bit to what i've already said, is this particular war of choice, these particular wars of choice -- maybe we should define it by the number of countries that we're bombing -- is it essential to u.s. national security? do we not have other options yet aside from u.s. combat troops? again, could this be prosecuted from the air in support of others on the ground?

or is there no other alternative than to right now send more, send u.s. combat troops, more than simply advisers, more than simply people to direct strikes on the ground? perhaps tens of thousands of u.s. combat troops into syria and back into iraq. again, a couple different statements suggesting that's not yet the case. general dempsey from late august and secretary kerry from middle of last month, is that there is still the expectation that the countries in the region and the countries who are most directly affected, threatened by isis still have the most at stake and, therefore, will do most of the heavy lifting. so to return to my four rules, is there a compelling u.s. national security interest? again, i think this is a debatable point, one that is worth debating. we can talk about the nature of the isis regime not merely their

barbarity, which no one disputes, but their capacity for carrying out additional attacks and perhaps even their intentions and their capabilities for taking us here in the united states. i think that is a debatable point, and it continues to be debated. so let's throw that in the mix. is there strong public support? well, yes, but there is strong public support for punishing isis for that mission which seems perfectly reasonable given the circumstances but not the mission that we appear to be embarked on which is to change the political order in two countries or at least one and to shift the political order in iraq be not outright -- if not outright change it. and this gets to the third point, is the mission clearly defined and reasonably attainable, and i say, no, because of the strong public support that is -- the public opposition to ground forces which was expressed so clearly

in the poll that i showed but not just that one, in others. and finally, is this a last resort? i think not partly for the reasons that i've laid out. so, again, i've used these sorts of criteria many times in the past. they're not particularly original, and i don't intend them to be, right? the point is that they don't need to be particularly original. there are criteria that we as a country have used in the past to judge whether or not u.s. combat forces should be engaged in military operations abroad, and it's really incumbent upon the american people and, ultimately, their representatives in congress to have that debate, to debate these questions, again, if they don't like the criteria that i've come up with or similar criterias, those of casper weinberger and colin powell, that's fine, they can come up with their own. but these seem to be obvious questions, and i would hope we

would hear those questions in a thorough-going debate in congress over the wars in iraq and syria. with that, happy to take questions. of course, it's not just me, but gene, and thank you for your attention and next. thank you. [applause] >> we do have time for some questions. anyone -- yes. in the back. i don't think we have mics, so if you could just raise your voice. >> [inaudible] i'd like to ask if you see us in a -- are we currently in a perpetual war, and if so, is there a doctrine or a strategy? i mean, has this gone beyond -- [inaudible] so is the new american strategy? >> well, i think chris could probably speak to the strategy better than i could, but i think

the, the way in which two successive administrations have stretched the post-9/11 aumf does threaten to permanently change the default setting of the united states from peace to war. as i think i awe lewded -- alluded to towards the end of the speech, there's as we get further away from three days after september 11th and we have groups that of various composition, various connections to core al-qaeda, varied intentions or lack of intentions to hit the united states homeland, we are becoming increasingly divorced from the original legal basis of the war against al-qaeda. and i do think it's quite

shocking that this was in 2013 senator levin asked in an armed services hearing asked a pentagon official for a list of these associated forces, and he was told that while he might be provided with a list, the list could not be shared with the public because the associated forces that were on the list could, it could harm national security because by naming, just by naming the people we're at war with, you know, for example, are we at war with al-shabaab in somalia, we don't know. just by naming them, they could gain credibility, and so jihadi street cred, and that would make them even more of a threat to the united states. i mean, this is an insane rationale. you know, if anything should be publicly debated, it should be the most grave question that we can deal with as a society, and i think that's the question of,

you know, war and peace. it's certainly what the constitution envisioned, certainly what the framers envisioned. and as we go, you know, we're at 13 years into the, into the history of the aumf, the pentagon sees up to 20 more years, it becomes a complete pretense that we've got any kind of real congressional authorization for this. it's being treated as the delegation in perp perpetuity ta succession or presidents to do more or less whatever they want that they think is in the name of national security. that's not the way our system is supposed to work. >> i could add to that, that this problem actually predates 9/11. and you could argue that it goes back to the existence of a standing military force which was also never the founders'

intention, right? consult your constitution. it talks about raising an army and maintaining a navy, and that was not just a semantic gimmick. that actually had real meaning to them x. so the fact that -- and so the fact that a president no longer is required to call up forces is why you don't have declarations of war, you don't have congress debating whether or not particular forces are necessary, because they are at his disposal. and so, and this goes back to the cold war era after world war ii where we maintained a much larger military than we had prior to world war ii. and so i think this is a problem that actually predates 9/11. >> any other questions? sure, right there. >> i'm sharon -- [inaudible] i have a quick question. average people when they start looking at who funded isis to begin with, when they look at the fact that the people they're going to fight, their passports

were not revoked. like they revoked edward snowden's passport, but the people that fought in isis, they actually said on "60 minutes," they're not going to revoke their passports but watch them carefully. we're looking at this as an an extension of the war on terrorism, so is this really a new war, or is this just an extension of the so-called war on terrorism that we're going to be fighting, like you said, for 20 years? >> you know, sometimes it makes less sense to talk about wars in plural, and maybe we should spend less time coming up with new names for new operations and just speak of war in the singular. this is, you know, what's envisioned to be a 30 years' war even as the president has told us that the threat from core al-qaeda has receded dramatically and each as the president -- even as the president told us in his nationally-televised address that we have no intelligence

that suggests a direct threat to the united states homeland. so, yeah, you know, pick your, pick whether you want to call it wars or war. i think there's a case to be made that it's a continual war. >> sure, in the middle. >> i have the definition of deciding when a war is absolutely necessary and try to define that, but i think it becomes exrah tricky when you're -- extra tricky when you're dealing with nonstate actors because the exit plan and to say this is the moment that the war is over is no longer possible when you don't get surrender. >> sure. >> in the way we used to. >> right. and that's an excellent point. and i think that gets to what gene just said, is that because we have declared war on, effectively, the tactic of

terrorism less so than the people who employ it, that, you know, by calling it a war on terrorism, it's an open-ended war truly against -- and so we've seen it in the evolution from al-qaeda to isis, two organizations that are bitter enemies, and yet we're trying -- and so far succeeding -- in treating them effectively in the same way. i wish i had a better answer. it's a good question. i do think there's some evidence that terrorist organizations over time fall apart for various different reasons. some pressure on them can contribute to that collapse. some that are particularly dependent upon strong leaders are defeated or become less relevant as those leaders are eliminated, either killed or jailed, etc. and so there are different strategies that are appropriate at different times. sometimes the political context,

sometimes the political dispute that a particular terrorist organization is fighting about changes. and so their goals change. so i think it is, it always has been true that we should deal with these more discreetly than lumping them altogether. >> [inaudible] both of you have already pretty well said this is the debate we should have, and thanks for that. i'm just curious to really get to the question, as crazy as it is, this is basically a return to arguing, you know, what some people called the bush doctrine, the pre'emive strike -- preemptive strike on nonstate actors. do you see the need for whatever you want the call it, kind of a couple of questions here, a preemptive war on groups of folks who want to come here and carry out, you know, mass terrorist attacks? >> right. well, a couple -- good question. i struggle a little bit with lumping it together with the bush doctrine, first of all,

which wasn't specifically about nonstate actors. of course, president bush gave that speech in preparation for the war in iraq, and he had in mind not a nonstate actor, but a state actor. he talked about, he called it preemption, but we understand it under traditional international legal terms as prevention which is, has a very different connotation. appropriately so, right? because it turns out that a license to wage preventive war can be virtually indistinguishable from naked aggression depending upon who's wielding it. and so traditionally international law has looked unkindly at that. i think it's particularly important in this case to assess isis' actual capabilities to carry out major attacks against the united states or even small scale attacks. for as much attention as fbi director comey's comments on "60 minutes" sunday night have attracted, the number that

sticks out in my mind is 12, that is a dozen possible, you know, terrorist wannabes coming back to the united states which a concern, yes. an existential or grave one? certainly not. so i think just as in the case of -- the one similarity is just something you talk about waging preemptive or preventive war against a state and, again, i want to differentiate, understanding their capabilities as well as their intentions is just as important if not more important when you're talking about nonstate actors. so that's where i would like to see the debate focus. >> well, i think as a constitutional matter the president does have some retained authority to act in the absence of congress. at the constitutional convention debates, you know, the phrase that's in madison's notes is, you know, they thought it stood very well, the president should

have the power to repel sudden attacks but not to initiate war. and i think in the 21st century this reserved power, this defensive power on the part of the president to use military force without congress, you know, i don't think you're going to find many analysts who say, well, it means that, you know, they get to have the first punch before we can do anything. if there is a case with a nonstate actor or a state actor where there's attack, an attack that's imminent, i don't think the president is required and no president would wait til that attack reaches our shores and has culminated. and i don't think you'd run into much trouble constitutionally if there is a case in limited cases where, you know, the use of military force can avert a sudden attack. i think everybody would be

onboard with that, and i don't think it's particularly problematic constitutionally. what we've got is something very different with the way the aumf has been stretched. it has been used to build an archipelago of secret drone bases throughout the middle east and africa. i mean, we literally had drones over timbuktu. you know, the -- in the foreign services committee, senate foreign services committee hearing a year and a half ago, an administration official in response to i think it was lindsey graham's questioning said do you have the authority under the aumf to put boots on the ground in the congo in and he said, yes. and i think there's a way in which when you have this open-ended authority that nobody has been challenging, it becomes like a self-licking ice cream cone.

it perpetuates itself, and it exists in order to exist. and that's why there are a number of proposals out there. i think the best proposals involve getting rid of the aumf after 13 years. getting rid of the aumf doesn't mean that, you know, as i said, that the president has to sit back and wait til something explodes before any action could be taken. but the war on terrorism is largely, if it's done in a smart fashion, is largely going to be a law enforcement and intelligence operation, and military force where it's appropriate. and if it's appropriate in the case of isis, i'm not convinced, but this is the kind of thing that, you know, we have a debate in congress about. >> right. >> so -- [inaudible] congressman randy weber's office, be we were to repeal the

aumfs and because of the nature of terrorist organizations that are constantly changing, what would a new aumf look like, and would it be that draft a new aumf every week because there's a new terrorist organization popping up? how would the new aumf look? >> well, there are a number of proposals. the, adam hiv's -- adam shiv's bill as i've looked at it authorizes limited operations against isis. it repeals the 2002aumf right away, and it repeals the 2001 aumf in, i believe, 18 months. again, i think -- i don't think, there's an alternative proposal by jack goldsmith and some others where you have rolling authority to add new groups if they need certain -- if they meet certain administrative

criteria to the associated forces list and -- >> [inaudible] >> yeah. although i think under the proposal we actually get to know -- [laughter] who gets, who gets added. i don't personally think that's necessary for the recent, you know, i talked about a minute ago that if new splinter groups not covered by the -- i mean, frankly, none of these, most of these groups are not covered by the aumf by anything like a good faith, plain language reading of the aumf. again, i think in the case of an imminent threat there is some reserved authority for the president to act unilaterally if that's necessary and it's imminent. if there's a group like isis that emerges expect claim is that we need -- emerges and the claim is that we need force to deal with this group, then we have the debate and we authorize that.

but there's not a lot of evidence that i'm aware of that these proliferating, splintering al-qaeda offshoots all represent that kind of threat. if that kind of threat emerges, we can get authorization from congress, or we can, you know, in extreme cases, you know, there can be some action taken on the president's own. >> yeah. the only thing i would add to that is if they have strained the definition of affiliated groups past the breaking point here, okay? there is some flexibility, perhaps more flexibility than either gene or i would like. but there is some flexibility in the existing -- in the 2001 aumf which a good faith, reasonable, you know, interpretation would have allowed and has allowed since 2001. but they're past that now. >> in fact, in the legislative history the 2001 aumf, the original bush administration proposal was much more

open-ended and included a phrase something like to deter and preempt all future acts of terrorism against the united states. and congress even in the, you know, traumatic aftershock of 9/11 rejected that language and settled on more limited language. but i think be you look at what's -- if you look at what's happened over the last decade or so, the presidents, two presidents are preceding as -- proceeding as if original, broader, open-ended litigation is what congress passed. >> did you have a question? >> [inaudible] i was wondering if you anticipate any mission creep if we continue on the current path, whether, you know, arming the syrian rebels will cause them to turn against assad before helping us with the isil threat or if bombing isil will actually

strengthen assad's position in syria. >> it's fair to say that i'm always worried about mission creep, but i'm particularly worried about it in this particular i instance. the political realities in iraq and syria are such that if we hold to a very ebbs pansive goal -- expansive goal which is to reorder the political system in syria, then, yes, i am very worried about mission creep. i'm worried it will not be accomplished from the air in support of forces on the ground, i'm worried about which forces we're helping, i'm worried about what happens if those forces actually win, whether or not they behave as we want them to or as they say they're going to behave. i think there are many reasons to doubt that that's true. again can, there's reasons to doubt it all the time. there are particular reasons to doubt it in syria. in the case of iraq, so much hinges on the perceived fairness and representativeness of the

iraqi government which there was, you know, a glimmer of hope when al-abadi took over, but there's still a lot of talk, not a lot of action, so still some very serious concerns about whether or not predominantly sunni groups will turn against isis. so, yes, i'm, i am particularly worried about mission creep in this, in these two instances. >> [inaudible] >> don kaley, i'm a columnist for the register guardian, eugene, oregon. i wonder if you could talk for a moment how hostage taking in the age of twitter changes the calculus. >> well, we certainly see that public opinion towards this mission -- again emphasizing a mission against isis -- did change after the public executions of the two americans

and then subsequent to that. and, again, it's not so surprising. these were shocking on many levels. and so it's not surprising to me that the public is supportive of a mission to punish isis. but again, i think there is a key distinction between punishing isis and, you know, conducting a full-on nation-building operation ultimately which is what we're talking about in syria and iraq. so, if anything, it's being able to differentiate between an appropriate response to these sorts of horrific acts and a response that perhaps is the one that isis actually intended from these videos which is to draw us into an increasingly unpopular war that is seen within the region as well as here at home as somehow unjust, okay? whereas the initial mission

would certainly not be seen as unjust as a punishment in response to a particular discreet, horrific act. >> yeah, following up on -- [inaudible] about the public opinion changing because of those beheadings. i think they need to be put in context. while isis was executing those two journalists, saudi arabia, our ally in the fight against isis, was beheading even more people for crimes such as sorcery and witchcraft. >> right. >> they did not, they did not, however, film them on youtube and broadcast them to the rest of the world with the intention of calling attention to those two executions. >> right. >> so that's why, that gets back to his question, you know -- >> well, i'm just arguing that they were talking about -- >> yes, okay. >> we don't think beheadings anymore, we execute people in this country. if isis was really barbaric,

maybe they should have given mr. foley a lethal injection -- [inaudible] i've seen photos of supposedly iraqi soldiers being executed by isis lying on the ground with the soldiers obviously still alive. we're told that isis offers christians the choice of conversion or death. they offer them a third option which is to pay a special tax. now, that special tax on christians and jews what the muslims call -- [inaudible] goes back to the early stages of islam. and christians and jews have lived very happily under muslims paying that tax for centuries. that's a little different than conversion or death. you know, whenever we want to attack somebody, we demonize them. and the -- [inaudible] strongest weapons in the warmonger's arsenal. so -- >> well, they're doing, they're doing a pretty good job of

self-demonizing, i would say. i mean, i don't think -- >> [inaudible] what you fear and see and read with a grain of salt. >> understood. >> as with many things, context matters a lot. right? that's what i think you're trying to say, and i agree with you. >> well, i'm suggesting that we may, like i say, we demonize the head of a government when we want to -- [inaudible] to the say we demonize an ideology when we perceive that they're the enemy -- [inaudible] we are clearly going to demonize isis if, in fact, we perceive them as someone we need to attack. [inaudible conversations] >> and worse. >> you know, people around the world who would say killing women and children and then fluffing them up as collateral damage is barbaric. >> any other questions? we have an -- oh, i'm sorry. go ahead. >> i have one more question. >> sure. >> [inaudible]

i, there was a lot of talk about the war powers act, and i just -- [inaudible] wanted your guys' opinions on whether or not that is -- [inaudible] >> do you mean there's the argument that the war powers act gives presidents a 60-90 day free pass? >> right. >> um, yeah, it's -- president obama is not the first president to make that argument. they made that argument in the libya kinetic military action and then when they blew through the 60-day deadline without authorization, he got state department legal adviser harold coe to draft an opinion that said bombing moammar gadhafi was not the sort of hostilities we envisioned. sure, we were dropping bombs on them, but we weren't engaged in hostilities within the meaning

of the war powers act. the idea that -- i think they floated the argument that they had a 60-day free pass obliquely early on in this operation. now they are relying principally on domestic statutory authority and mainly under the 2001 aumf in which case they're saying it's already authorized, so they don't need further authorization from congress. it's not already authorized, and the other argument is no good either, the war powers resolution itself, you know, says that nothing in the resolution is designed to alter the territory of the constitutionally of the president and congress' war powers. nothing in the constitution gives the president 60 days to

run amok before it's an illegal war. so it's, you know, it's not a good argument, but it is an argument that other presidents have used, and some congressional scholars like louis fisher who feel very strongly about that wars should be authorized have even said that we ought to repeal the war powers act because it has this supposed ambiguity that presidents have seized upon. >> i want just before we close since chris gave credit for the folks who helped him out with his powerpoint -- [laughter] i'd be remiss and maybe in trouble if i didn't mention that my lovely and talented wife caitlin prepared my presentation which was technically far beyond my capabilities. everything i prepare looks like a caveman wrote it on the ground with a stick. [laughter] but that was, that presentation was hers, so thank you, caitlin.

will[laughter] >> take one more? one more question? >> [inaudible] one of the things you bring up is the u.n. article 51 -- >> uh-huh. >> -- which, again, i don't know if you have any thoughts on that, just curious to your thoughts on that. >> well, it's not a good argument to begin with, and it's not a, it's not applicable in this case, wasn't applicable in the libya case -- or, actually, it was. yes, it was applicable in the libya case. >> poorly. >> but, no. i mean, louis fisher who i mentioned a second ago has done a lot of work on this. the u.n. authorization act that was passed with the understanding and it's in the language that there was separate authorizationing from congress. you know -- authorization from congress. what the security council does is relevant to, you know, the status of the operation in international law, but it doesn't provide domestic legal authority. i mean, when we joined the u.n.,

we did not, you know, congress could not, the senate could not have in perpetuity delegated congressional war powers. so, you know, that argument may be relevant to the question of international law, it can't give you what you have to get from congress which is domestic legal authorization for military -- for the use of force. >> before we close, just with regard to the war powers resolution question and what gene had referenced, congressman scott garrett has a bill introduced that would repeal the war powers resolution. and, hopefully, the next time you see a debate on the legitimate -- legitimacy of airstrikes in syria or anywhere on c-span, it will love members -- it will involve members of congress. thank you all for coming and, please, thank our speakers. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] >> and a look at our live coverage tonight at 7:00 eastern, a u.s. senate debate in virginia between incumbent senator democrat mark warner and his republican challenger, ed gillespie. real clear politics show senator warner leading by between 9-12 points. you can watch the debate tonight live here on c-span2. and then at nine we'll be live from arizona for a debate between incumbent ron barber and republican martha mcsally who ran against each other in 2012, this is a seat once held by gabby giffords. and on c-span, a u.s. senate debate in north carolina with democratic senator kay hagan and republican challenger thom

tillis. we spoke with a reporter about this race. >> the latest nbc news poll shows in north carolina kay hagan with a slight lead over thom tillis, her republican challenger. 44% to 40%. and joining us on the phone is renee schoof, she is following this as a washington correspondent for the raleigh, north carolina, news and observer. thanks very much for being with us. >> guest: thank you. >> host: this is the latest poll that shows the incumbent senator, a democrat, slightly ahead of her republican challenger. what's happening? >> guest: actually, we've been noticing in polls for the last month senator hagan has been ahead at least a little bit. the race is still very much a toss-up. it's too close to call. but at least half a dozen polls in the past month have shown her ahead. >> host: why? >> guest: well, that's a good question. the race has been tight. north carolina is very closely divided between democrats and

republicans. senator hagan has been making this as much as she can a vote about what her opponent, house speaker thom tillis, has done in the state legislature, his record. the legislature has taken the state quite a bit to the right and has made some reductions in education spending compared to what growth would require. so that is her main talking point in the campaign. >> host: in fact, in a number of ads she's been quick to point out that she has been the independent voice for north carolina in the u.s. senate. how does the tillis campaign respond to that. >> >> guest: well, the tillis campaign all along has been saying that senator hagan is too closely aligned with president obama. and they point to some policies that are unpopular with the a large segment of the population there, particularly the health care law. >> host: as you look at the upcoming debate between these two candidates courtesy of wral

las vegas, what are you looking for? >> guest: well, again, as in all of these events, it's a chance for the candidates to show voters directly how they're different from one another. some experts think perhaps they will bring up things that didn't come up in the first debate on september 3. that might be issues like voting rights and gun control. it's also possible that some things that have been in the news in the past few weeks like the ebola virus and the fight against the terrorists in iraq and syria will come up. speaker tillis has been trying to use some foreign policy issues to show his strength and also to criticize senator hagan. >> host: renee schoof, can you give our audience a sense of the ground game? what does the tillis campaign have on the ground in healthcare and, conversely, from the hagueen campaign's perspective. >> guest: both parties are working really hard to turn out voters. it's really complicated in an election when there's no presidential race, so both parties have people knocking on

doors every weekend, all the time, as much as they can. and they also have groups that support them out doing the same thing. >> host: we are a month away before the midterm elections. where this campaign is right now, the hagueen campaign and the tillis campaign, has it surprised you, or is it what you expected? >> guest: well, it's so close, and everyone all along said it would be very close, so i guess we can't say we're too surprised about that. it's still a toss-up, remains to be seen. >> host: the latest on the north carolina senate race, renee schoof is washington correspondent for the rag league, north carolina -- raleigh, north carolina, news and observer. thanks very much for being with us. >> guest: thank you. >> you can watch the north carolina senate debate tonight at nine eastern over on c-span. here's a look at some of the ads running during the campaign. >> i'm kay hagan, and you've seen a lot about me lately. out-of-state special interests are spending millions distorting my record. i approved this message because i am tough enough to keep taking

the punches, but you deserve to hear what i'm really about. fighting to create jobs and build an economy that works for everyone, standing up for our troops and veterans and protecting medicare and social security so the next time you see those false attack ads, ask yourself: whose side are they on? ♪ ♪ >> my first job, a paper route. by 15, i was a short order cook. instead of college, i went to work. got my degree two decades later. twenty-five years in business, partner at ibm. my story's not special. in america it happens all the time. but the train wreck in washington puts all that at risk. i'm thom tillis. i approved this message. washington has it wrong, but americans can make it right. >> i'm anna, and i'm from black mountain. education was my way out, but i worry it won't be for my kids. under thom tillis' leadership,

they've cut textbook funding so much that i can't help my son with his homework. i think it's clear that thom tillis wants only a certain class of people to have opportunities. i'm a middle class mom. he's not working for my family. >> i'm kay hagan, and i approved this message. >> seen those ads attacking thom tillis? they're false. he fired the staffers. know who's paying for those sleazily ads? it's harry reid. reid's trying to fool republican voters, meddling in our primary to get a weak opponent for kay hague b. -- hagan. that's why we need tillis in washington. don't be fooled by harry reid. >> i'm thom tillis, and i approved this message. >> here are just a few of the comments we've recently received from our viewers. >> you don't have to be an einstein to know the only way to keep ebola from coming in the

united states is to have presidents step in and demand that no one from africa be allowed to come into this country for at least the next ten years or more until this ebola is completely eradicated. i can't comprehend how people are so nonchalant about this ebola getting into the united states. i'm so glad c-span put out this number for viewers to call in, and i hope all the people who feel as i do will call in and state their outrage as to how this vip problem is being handled and demand the president to take the action i have suggested. >> what did these people expect about this ebola outbreak? they said it would never reach the united states, ever. now, look, look what's happened. and 3,000 other people over there? are you kidding me? we're falling for this bunch of bull that these. doctors are giving us as they're smiling up

there? oh, we've got this under control, it'll never spread, blah, blah, blah. it wasn't supposed to get over here either, blah, blah, blah. >> there's a wonderful discussion going on right now, panel discussion on the ebola virus, and it has been revealed over the news this morning that a person left liberia and came from west africa over here, he got out, went to his kinfolks' house in northeast dallas. his family members contracted the ebola virus from him. it could be construed that there was a reckless disregard to the americans when this guy was allowed to leave a place that's plagued with the ebola virus without somebody having checked him out before he board the plane or then after boarding the plane and come over here, nobody

checks him out, and he goes right on into the dallas community. and now as a result of that, there are people in quarantine. he's in the hospital, don't know whether he's going to die. and i haven't checked the local news yet because i have it on c-span right now to see whether he's going to live or die. >> and continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400, e-mail us at comments@c-span.org or you can send us a tweet at c-span@comments. follow us on twitter. >> next, a look at the role of group club for growth in campaign 2014 to electrifies cally -- elect fiscally conservative candidates forhoco

congress. >> host: let's talk about campaign 2014 and how club for growth chooses the candidates you're going to support and chooses the ones you're going to oppose. >> guest: well, it's a long process. we've been kind of participating in this process for probably eight election cycles, since club was founded in its current iteration. and so what we do is we try to find champions of economic freedom. we have an interview process, we have a research process, and soe a lot of elements have to fall into place, and a lot of things have to look like we can recommend endorsing a candidate to our members. they rely on us to do the svelting process and to make -- vetting process and to make recommendations to them for fiscal conservatives. we just do economic issues, that's the only kind of basket of issues that we make decisions on, and so it's a process that takes some time. we don't can endorse a lot of candidates. that's not our goal. our goal is just to endorse the

best candidates. and we've had a pretty good track record of doing that. >> host: who are your members? what do you do for a living? >> they're from all walks of lives, independents, republicans, libertarians. what really unifies them is they belief pro-economic growth policies are the foundation for a prosperous cup. and so -- country. and so like i said, we don't do social issues, foreign policy, but they all can agree on pro-economic growth like tax reform, pro-growth tax reform, just things that result in a strong economy and lead to prosperity for everyone. >> host: they put together this graphic for your group. money spent for or against candidates in this election cycle, this is the money spent against candidates. the red line is republicans. spent more money against republicans than you have for them. why? >> guest: well, we participate in primaries, and so we think that we're not a republican

group, we're a fiscal conservative group. and we don't think all republicans are equal. the unfortunate thing is a lot of republicans, they all run on same thing, they all say the same thing. and so what i do is challenge republicans to say, okay, in the last 20-plus years when have republicans actually done things they say they're for? when have we had any meaningful tax reform, entitlement reform? when have we had tort reform, less debt rather than more debt? we're looking for people that run on those things and actually mean those things. so when we find people like that, we support them in primaries against incumbent republicans who have been in washington a long time, and they say things but don't do things. and so we're looking for people that truly have firmly-held beliefs, they'll use those beliefs to guide them if they're elected and challenge the status quo here in washington which needs to change. >> host: so where are you playing now? the primaries are over. where are you playing in the general election?

>> guest: we have four competitive general election candidates that we're supporting right now for competitive races. two senate races, arkansas and alaska -- tom cotton and sullivan -- and so those are very competitive races that will be, i think, instrumental in who controls the senate. after election day. and then we have two competitive house races as well, one in louisiana five, and we're supporting a guy named zack dasher. louisiana, as you know, has a unique kind of elections system where their primary's actually on general election day, and they may have a runoff. so he's running against an incumbent republican as well, and we're supporting a candidate in maryland two running against an incumbent democrat, and we think they're both champions of economic freedom. all of our candidates are. and then we're in six other races that we were involved in the primaries, but they're not competitive now. the nominees are going to more than likely win.

so we don't have to spend a lot of time and resources on those races anymore. >> host: let's talk about the arkansas race. former president bill clinton was back in his home state yesterday, he's there again today doing campaign events, rallying for the incumbent democrat there, mark pryor. want to show our viewers what he had to say and get your response. >> and i'm just telling you, you cannot afford to do what their opponents want. they want you to make this a protest vote. all three of these races they're saying you may like these guys but, hey, you know what you gotta do, you gotta vote against the president. i promise, it's your last shot. it's a pretty good scam, isn't it? give me a six-year job for a two-year protest. that's mark pryor's opponent's message. yeah, i voted to cut student loans, yeah, i voted to raise the interest rate, yeah, i voted against the violence against women act, no, i'll never vote for e way pay for equal work.

but i'll give you one more protest vote. to do it, you've got to give me six years for a protest that will be irrelevant in two. >> guest: well, he's obviously talking about tom cotton. tom cotton is a very principled conservative, he's a great american that has served his country in the military. he's a great candidate. and so bill clinton is bill clinton, you know? he's very popular in arkansas, he's a great politician. he's a great messager in a lot of ways -- messenger in a lot of ways for democrats. >> host: concerned that he could sway some voters? that he could help in that race? >> guest: well, you know, this is going to be a close race. and, but the thing is, so, beating any incumbent anywhere is very difficult. beating an incumbent named pryor in arkansas is really difficult because it kind of transcends politics, his dad was a very popular governor and senator for a long time. mark pryor's been in washington for a very long time as well. tom cotton's an extraordinary candidate.

tom cotton, i think, is going to win that race because he has a good message. the whole thing -- that's the first time i've heard this kind of six-year term for a two-year protest. yeah. >> guest: i'm not even sure what that means. these principles and these policies are for a lifetime, and they're for future generations and that's what tom cotton's talking about, how do we put our country in a better place for all of us for years to come? we have unsustainable debt, we have a lot of problems that we need to address, many of which have not been addressed in the last six years and need to be addressed going forward, and tom cotton's the candidate that will do that for the people of arkansas. >> host: you say it's going to be a tight race, so what are you going to do for, to help tom cotton? run campaign ads? are you going to be on the ground? what's the game like? >> guest: well, we're not a grassroots organization. we don't do kind of things on the ground. what we have done for a long time is support tom cotton financially through our members. we supported him when he first ran for the house in 2012 when he was at 3% in the polls.

and so our members know tom cotton well, they've supported him generously for a long time, and they'll continue to do that. we bundle contributions, so our members band together and make contributions to tom cotton's campaign. we've also done independent expenditures for a long time supporting him, beginning in 2013. we ran ads in that race. so we'll continue to do those types of things that help put him in a position on election day where he can win. >> host: if it, if you go to opensecrets.org, your contributions are nearly two million for this election cycle. your outside spending is over seven million. what do you think -- how much in the end do you think you're going to be spending here? you rank 12 out of 121, by the way, for outside spending. >> guest: well, that's hard to say. i mean, we do what we need to do when we need to do it. we're not one of these organizations that say we're going to spend a whole bunch of money just to say we spent a whole bunch of money. we only spend it where it's effective and needed. so we don't ask our members to

support our efforts unless we know they're going to be the determining factor in the outcome of an election. so we look at that every single week, we analyze every race we're in and the resources we need to put in those races, and the fact is, you know, there's a lot of people supporting people like tom cotton, and that's good. and so these races, people say there's too much money in politics. i'm not sure what that means. i don't know how much is too much, and i don't know who gets to define how much is too much. but these races are expensive, they require a lot of resources, and those resources will be there for tom cotton. >> host: what about other republicans where there are tight races? georgia, kentucky, kansas, why aren't you going to support those republicans? >> guest: well, we're not a republican organization, we're not in the business of just electing republicans. what we're in the business of is trying to find champions of economic freedom that will support pro-growth policies. >> host: so none of those republicans are that?

>> guest: well, i would say we have a select group that we think are the best, and we support those candidates. we don't pretend we can play in every race and be determinative in every race. we only ask our members to support our efforts, and we think we really matter when we band together and we try to enter a race. but everything we do isn't about politics, it's about policy. we understand you can effect policy through the political process. so what we're looking for is people who will come to washington, go in that building behind you and actually say, you know what? we've talked about pro-growth tax reform for 20 years, we're actually going to do it. we're going to have the courage to stand up and espouse the principles we do on the campaign trail here in washington, and very few do that. >> host: senator mitch mcconnell's been in congress for 30. does club for growth support him as the majority leader? >> guest: we don't get involved in leadership races. there's no game that's more inside baseball than leadership races. and so what with we do is we figure if we elect enough champions of economic freedom, they'll elect one of their own

as their leader. so we don't get a vote, so we don't really even comment on it. we just want -- it's a numbers game, it's a head count. the more people you have that'll support pro-growth policies, the more likely it is they'll elect one of their own to lead their conference. >> host: okay. let's go to stephen in indiana. you're up first for chris from club for growth. go ahead. >> guest: good morning, chris. >> guest: morning. >> caller: i asked my father about politics when i was younger, i asked about republicans and democrats, he told me he'd smack a democrat and punch republicans, so that's just my little comment there. but i've got a question for you. on tax code, i believe we need the tax to change, but are you just for people that are real rich and they want more money for, you know, running business -- [inaudible] in town here hostess, their ceo has made a 300% increase while the employees had a 30% discount, had to take a price

cut. >> guest: well, you know, pro-growth tax reform certainly involved marginal rates. we think they matter. we think that we believe in a thing called the laugher curve, that when you -- laffer curve, lowering the burden on people making investments and growing the economy. the economy grows. and, frankly, we're not against increased revenue to the federal government because if you have a pro-growth tax policy, federal revenue will grow because the economy will grow at a faster rate. and so you're taking a smaller slice of the pie, but the pie becomes much bigger. and so it's not about any individual, it's not about any person making more or less money, it's about growing the economy and everyone benefits from that and enjoying more prosperity. >> host: what are the prospects, do you think, of tax reform after november? >> guest: well, that's a good question. so dave camp, the chairman of ways and means, he came out with a pro-growth tax reform package which he had worked his whole career to be in a position to

offer. the problem is most republicans criticized it. we came out and we said this isn't perfect, but this is directionally correct, this is a great step to get started. and so the problem is that, once again, both parties have the habit of saying one thing and not always following through on it. so we hope that if republicans have the house and the senate, that they will actually make good on their promise for pro-growth tax reform. even the president says that he wants to have tax reform and especially corporate tax reform. and so it's not about corporations getting a tax break, it's about putting united states corporations in a position where they can compete in a global marketplace effectively. and so i think that facts matter, and the facts are we have the highest or second highest tax burden in the industrialized world which drives jobs out of this country. it's not about rich fat cats in corporations, it's about jobs in america being and corporations being competitive so they can

compete, they can grow here, and they can employ more people here. >> host: the a "wall street journal" column this morning why a senate loss may be a win for obama, because if the republicans control both the house and the senate, both parties will be forced to compromise. so as the president of club for growth, would you support some sort of compromise on tax reform, giving democrats something that they would want? >> guest: i don't know what compromise means because you've got to say where you start from. so if we're going to start from more government, more spending, more favors for, you know, more corporate welfare, no. we don't think that's a good place to start. but what i think republicans ought to do is to invite president obama to support their agenda, the agenda they all run on, they all say the same thing, and then see what the president does. i suspect they won't do that. i suspect they will not challenge president obama to veto some of the policies they've long offered because 2016 will be a are tough year

for -- will be a very tough year for republican senators because there's so many up for re-election. they'll probably do relatively small things like the keystone pipeline, maybe the medical device tax, things that do have bipartisan support. they're good things, but they're not, you know, they're not bold leadership. so i hope we're surprised. i hope that where dave camp is retiring, but i hope his efforts are picked up upon, and the republicans adopt an aggressive pro-growth tax reform package and they offer president obama the opportunity to support it. >> host: more on the legislative agenda, but let's first talk to bill in new york, independent caller. bill, go ahead. >> caller: good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: i'd like to make a few comments on this. am i on the line now? >> host: you are, bill, you are on the air. go ahead. >> caller: okay. you know, years ago when president george bush jr. became president, the first thing he did was cut taxes on the wealthy. the second thing he did was cut the revenue he sent to the states. so now the states cut the

revenue they send to the villages and the towns. so now the towns had to raise property taxes to pay for the village expenses, they had to raise school taxes to pay for the school taxes, and now we're talking about cutting corporate taxes. and our military serves the corporations around the world protecting the oceans and the seas to keep free trade moving. and now you're going to pass that cost onto the citizens of america. and alexander hamilton, the first thing he did was tax all products coming into this country to pay for our coast guard and our military. and now you want the american people to pay for the tax and let all these american corporations that are, that george bush sr. when he was the ambassador to china under richard nixon is the one who started this trade with china. >> host: okay, bill. let's get a response. >> guest: well, i mean, going back a few things, a president can't actually cut the money

that's sent to the states because the government doesn't have any money that doesn't come from the people in those states in the first place. history is history. this isn't really a bipartisan thing -- or this isn't really a partisan thing. this is just math. when you go back and look throughout history when you have pro-growth tax reform and we see marginal rates lowered, we see federal revenue actually go up, and so it's not a ideological thing, it's a observance of history, and it's math. so when you talk about we're going to lower the corporate tax rate, the problem is we have a high corporate tax rate, and those corporations are leaving the united states to seek out more friendly tax environments. ..with this whole in version debate, it is not about being patriotic or not. it is about growing your business where you can, most successfully, in the marketplace. you cannot put around our

borders -- every time, we have suffered for it. it is history, learning the facts that have worked and not work and we try to support those who -- those that work. charles in california, independent caller. caller: yes, good morning. i like the program and i learn a lot. was shook by a comment he .eeps making we have examples in history where we cut taxes and the economy group euros wondering if you give us an example. i am just looking at the economic issue of the country.

the taxes were cut and the national debt doubled under the reagan administration. if you have a simple example of we cuttion that somehow taxes and the economy just bo guest: >> host: okay, charles. >> guest: there are examples in history. the deficit, only drug-related to the tax cuts because it's about spending rather than spending. in 2003 after the bush tax cuts federal revenue and all time high. the rate the economy grew. we can all point to the '80s and the '90s when we had a very robust economy and our country prospered from the. so the facts are there. the economy has grown and we had more competitive tax structure. it's all about giving people incentives to save, work and

invest. we need to feel like they can benefit from good investing and they can benefit from working lower and harder, they tend to do it. people are very good at understanding their own self interest. when you reward people for doing those things they do them. again it's just history but don't confuse federal revenue with the deficit. unfortunately, it should be connected but it's not always because the more the government takes in, the more they spend. they always spend more than they take in. >> host: we are talking with chris chocola, pro-growth candidates their support in this election cycle as well as the fiscally conservative agenda that they would like to see after the midterms are over. with your questions or comments we will take them. start out in. with a few lines open. mary and franklin, tennessee, democratic caller. >> caller: hi. i just hope america is paying

attention to what this fellow is saying. because he's doing the same thing grover norquist did, and this is just ridiculous that we are not raising taxes. and the democrats are just big cowards, not fighting, not exposing. the only one exposing any of these corruption is bernie sanders. the economy will not grow without taxes. >> host: okay, i will have chris chocola jump in. >> guest: the facts are these, that we have an unsustainable burden that we know we have, pick a number, $100 trillion, promises we have made to americans in the future through our social security, medicare, medicaid and other spending and we have no idea how we will pay for. you could confiscate the

property, take every car, every house, every bank account of every american in america and you would be 30% short of meeting the promises financial we've already made. you can't tax people enough to solve our problems. it's impossible. they could take everything and we would still huge problem that we don't want to fix. the only answer is reform. we have to get government spending under control. we have to find ways just have smarter more efficient government. we have to give the economy incentives to grow so we can fix our problems. you can't tax people enough. it isn't going to solve the problem. >> host: on spending one where both parties tried to do with that is the budget control act and they said okay if we don't get the spending down automatic cuts going to place. so-called sequestration across the board. want to she would louisiana governor bobby jindal, republican come had to say yesterday about that in washington at the american enterprise institute. >> i think we should do everything we can.

i'm hopeful harry reid will be retired as majority leader and i'm hopeful answer blows will not be returning to speaker but i agree with the premise of your questions that the sequestration my comes to defense cuts were a mistake. added on top of president obama's own reductions, secretary gates, then you add the impact of sequestration, you have nearly $1 trillion in reductions what was the last responsible assessment of what the pentagon actually needed. secretary gates didn't propose, i would argue didn't go far enough but i'd know the last time there was a reasonable threat analysis, it's just remarkable to me the president in the space of a speech, simply throw out his own secretaries work and pick an arbitrary number and then on top of that, congress would impose arbitrary reductions on top of those arbitrary reductions. i think was a mistake for republicans to accept sequestration cuts in defense. i think we do need to allow cuts to the other federal budget.

we need to continue to shrink government. when it comes to defense i think sequestration cuts in defense were a mistake. i think if they were honest even the administration would think that they played a bad game of chicken with the nation's defense and we all lost. >> host: cases when it comes to defense, he is calling for 4% gdp increase for the pentagon over a certain amount of years. >> guest: the sequestration was a game of chickens. no one could do their job well so they all thought that they were challenged each other to do the unthinkable, and it got done. and they gave it all back. we were actually in support of the sequester numbers. we thought that defense spending was okay. we are not defensive or don't do foreign policy, military issue but the bottom line is what got to find where we're going to spend less somewhere. and republicans, a sacred cow is

military spending to the democrats have a lot of other social spending. and so both sides will have to find ways that they can spend money more efficiently in their head areas. and so sequester was actually working and the sequester actual limit the size of government the first time in over a generation that government spent less on anything. and it was a really less. it was slower growth. and so it was something i think is unfortunate that was relinquished. >> host: in 20 to you were record saying we we don't care where they get the cuts, that they should go forward. so it was a mistake for the ways in the governor to say that. >> guest: well, bobby jindal has got to say whatever, however he views the situation. certainly he can describe it that way. >> host: would you support a candidate who said what he said? >> guest: there's more to it than just one issue like that that makes our decision, but the

bottom line is if it's a mistake to cut military spending that much, then congress ought to find where we're going to cut somewhere else. i will guarantee we spend money and a lot of places we don't need to spend and are there so many crises right now the kind of forget about some of the things, like the va. we are spending a lot of money on the va but not providing services people deserve. like the irs. it's not functioning in a way that instills trust in the american people. let's focus not on bigger government but better government. how do we find ways to manage our government better that we provide a return to the american people who are paying for it becauwe can all afford? that's all we're asking. >> host: talking with club for growth presen present chris chot with the spending the resources in 2015. you can see a much they spent so far in contributions nearly 2 million outside spent a little over 7 million.

michael in new york, democratic caller. first i dislike is that i disagree with your guest this morning, chris, on a number of issues. first and foremost i do think the u.s. needs to basically reorganize or overhaul the tax code in the united states committee go into a vat tax. it may be far more efficient and probably help the poor and middle class as a fat tax would hit people who are wealthier and buying bigger income items like boats and so when. another issue i do agree with him on is the fact that is the fact that there could have scott and far, far too large. we have seen the states now asserting state rights rights and issues everything from medical marijuana to even immigration where states that are crafting their own policies and laws. the one area where do have a question is on entitlements. unfortunately, seem to have loved social security and medicare in with welfare and medicaid.

i do -- is critical to support our seniors and i was wondering what your views are on this but if we see a large reduction in social security, special people are current in the baby boom transitioning, it may impact the economy because there will be less way for them to spend to help us keep the economy humming along. >> guest: well, the only way we are certain we're going to see a large reduction in and how it's been is to do nothing. they are going bankrupt. it's not up for debate. it's just math. just look at all of the cbo, any government agency or any independent economic analysis will say that we can't afford the programs they are currently decide in the funding streams that currently keep them alive. they will fall off a cliff. so we have a responsibility to before. if we really care about are seniors, if we care about people of lower incomes that legitimately need help from our government, then we out to be serious about reform.

there are good reform ideas out there that maybe sustainable that put him in a position. they can serve the people they're intended to serve our long period of time because they are not in a position right now. there's a lot of emotion around these types of things. that's understandable but it's not helpful when we ignore the facts and we ignore the math. we have to find the courage to say we have to restructure these programs in a way that they will be these are the people there and intended to serve for generations to come. saying we can't touch them is the greatest disservice to those people that we can to. >> host: ryan next, san diego, republican caller. >> caller: good morning. my question is i never hear any of the democrats or republicans talk about inflation, particularly money supply inflation. if the money is being created where is that new money going to first? it seems to me the new money is going first to the banks of the banks are getting new money and

they're the ones getting richer. so we are no longer in an expansion type of economy. were more into a sustainable economy. so when is someone going to address the inflation issue an increase of my supply and whether the money is going to first? >> guest: this is a big issue. monetary policy is critical and what we've seen is the fed has been very generous in their creation of new money and trying to pump it into the economy to sustain the economy. we think there are potential problems with that. when they stop what is the consequences going to be. so we think the best thing to do is have just fundamental policies in place that will sustain growth and create growth in america. we think what's happening now is a bit artificial. it has pumped up the stock market. the banks were supposed to make this money available at very

cheap rates for people will borrow it and make investments. but it can't go on forever so we are concerned when forever comes to an end to. >> host: chris chocola has been serving as the president of club for growth sense 2009, and served on leadership council since 2007. ran for congress in 2002, served two terms for indiana's second congressional district. taking your questions, comments on midterm elections as well as fiscally to ensure the agenda for after november. karl next in alexandria, virginia, independent caller. >> caller: good morning. my comment is about the corporate taxes, corporate tax rate for american corporations. i think the tax rate they pay should not be cut because being an american corporation you get a lot of benefits that you don't get it is other countries with low tax rates such as sierra

leone and where all this craziness is going on. you get the corporation here in america, you have a safe, healthy workforce. you have great security, great infrastructure to move your kids about, a great customer base. so things g look pretty good if you have a corporation here, but, unfortunately, the corporations with a record-breaking profits, i can understand want to grow more but it shouldn't be at the cost of the country that they grow even more than the already growing, astounding growth. so now they should get additional -- we don't know why but it do what the cdc figure to protect them. we want government to be small to get we want the cdc. it seems like the club is for corporate growth and not for the growth of america. >> guest: well, we are for economic growth, and corporations are part of our economy. corporations is a group of people to work together to do something. so the more they grow the more jobs they can create.

we are not for corporations. in fact, we're very much against corporate welfare. it's an ex-im bank issue we are leading the charge against. but we like, we like a growing economy. so this isn't about being for or against anything other than goods -- a policy that results in good things. so you can talk about it's a big break for corporations to pay less in taxes but it doesn't matter what we think that it matters what the opportunities are presented to corporations, and they will go where the opportunity is the greatest. they make decisions based on the business environment, the legal environment, the stable of the economy, the places they go and apparently they're making decisions that things are just fine in other places outside the united states when they can be more effectively. if you raised, all of this is the cost of doing business and if you raised the cost of doing business to a company it will seek a lower cost somewhere

else. again it's not about would like something or don't like something about a company. we just like pro-growth policy that results in the most growth and the most opportunity for the most people. >> host: why don't you like the export-import bank agency in d.c.? >> guest: it gets down in the weeds a bit but the ex-im bank is a 70 euros government program that's put in place to assist companies, export the product outside the united states by dividing low-cost financing to their customers. the reality is about 80% of that financing goes to boeing, caterpillar and gdp these are huge corporations that can find financing all on their own. it's the american taxpayer being put at risk to support these possible corporations. death of the alternatives but effective even said if it wasn't there, they could survive just fine. it's a government slush fund. the ex-im bank has got several charges of corruption in

practices. and so it's a corporate welfare program that we simply can't afford. it's important, there's a moral aspect to this but if republicans going to say they want to reform social welfare, but then have had the courage to say we're going to reform corporate welfare. so far they haven't had the courage. now we are moving in the right direction, having the majority leader say he is for -- chairman of the financial system and he said he is for the bank authorization expiring the so moving in the right direction. it's a richly small thing but a big thing from a symbolic standpoint of whether republicans can actually sit we're going to reform corporate welfare. >> host: it was reauthorized temporarily. >> guest: temporary until june. so that's a small victory in the sense that last time it was reauthorized, it was a 40% increase in their level of funding. and so we will see what happens in june, but we've got importance of the republican

leadership taking the right position on this. this is an easy one. this is small -- of y y there are thousands of jobs they will lose. i think he's corporations can find the ability to sell the products elsewhere, not at the taxpayers expense the. >> host: under the issue that is likely to come back up in mid-december is the continuing resolution. the congress before they left agreed to fund the government through mid-december. the club for growth that called it a key vote. "washington post" is then you blink and she backed down on the funding to. >> guesty put in the isis issue into that, that character of the changed. so when we do key votes we want to be revealed vote on peoples the on economic policy. when they include the isis spending or the authorization of the spending, it changed the character of the vote. it wasn't a revealed vote on

peoples economic views anymore. it was more of a foreign policy vote. we voiced opposition to the continuing resolution. we think land ducks are very interest. people are not allowed to go back in office is because they do obstruct of things. we were not in favor of extending the authorization, even temporarily. we wanted to see expire. the authorization of the bank did expire at the end of september. so we thought doing nothing, something congress is usually good at but they were good at this time and just letting expire by doing nothing. so we oppose those certain elements, the character of the changed house of representatives lecture from deborah, democratic caller. thanks for hanging on the line. >> caller: good morning. please don't cut me off. let me make my point. first of all, social security is

solvent. we just need to take the cap off of the rich people. they can just came in for every dollar they got like the rest of us, okay, but that's not my point. my question is why are we paying $3 billion a year to israel when they're committing war crimes, not only that, they have the most billionaires and millionaires on the planet. why are we doing that? >> guest: just on the social security, if you take the cap off our earnings were people continue to be social strata taxes on their entire earnings that the earn above that limit, it sounds really good but that won't solve our problem. the math just doesn't work. you could do that but it won't solve the problem. again we are not come we don't do foreign policy and a lot of foreign aid is related to foreign policy. we don't generally take a

position on that. >> host: lots of reaction on twitter to what we've been talking about today. export-import bank exit possible for small businesses who are dependent on the. you've got unless the corporate tax rate goes to zero they will dodge it. and then you can eliminate corporate taxes and the corporations wil was to go where labor is cheaper. greed is the bottom line. >> guest: there's a lot there. what was the first one? oh, ex-im bank and small businesses. this is a line that, you know, has been, the lobbyists are making a lot of money in washington right now trying to tell a story about ex-im bank. i had a real job before i got into politics in our business utilize the ex-im bank program. 40% of our sales are outside the united states. let me tell you not one job was relied on that program. companies use it because it's there. it's free money. why wouldn't they? so we don't blame any company

for using it because it's there. we blame the policymakers for making it available. we never sat around in our business saying our budget deadline and are profit targets are reliant on ex-im bank. never. so there's other financing available. but if it's not, you know why it's not? the risk is too high. at the risk is too high, why should the taxpayers in america be the ones on the line for the risk? house of representatives that sounds like it will continue next year june 2015 wind reauthorization is of. >> guest: the corporate tax, if it was a zero, it would be all of the world flocking to the united states but it's a fact. because it is the best place in the world to do business from a lot of respect. this is the greatest country in the world with the greatest legal structure. we have a high cost of doing business. so you're lower the cost to do business, i guarantee people will come here. so many you can count. >> host: if republicans get

control of the senate and all likelihood they keep control of the house, what's first on the republican agenda? >> guest: that's a good question. we think they should engage, we think cash reform is the greatest and they can do to get the economy growing again. we also think they need to reform obamacare. i just happened to have lost my health insurance and i just couldn't long story but i got to renew early last year and i'm coming up to anniversary they were i don't have insurance. i'm going to the process of trying to find it. so this is an ongoing situation where people are going to find himself in difficult situations, employer mandate will take effect soon. so they have to find a way to deliver health care in a market oriented way where people can get what they want at a competitive price, not being imposed on them by government. >> host: you want to see more votes to repeal the aca? >> guest: we would like to repeal a obamacare, yes. we think it's bad policy and bad law and get results in not good

for health care for america. my deductibles now are going to be $7200 a year. and so when people experience that, that's a big increase in the cost of the level of the health care costs. so we have to find a better way and i think republicans have responsibility. they have talked about it enough. now it is time for them to deliver house of representatives for more information you can go to the website, club for growth.org. thank you very much. appreciate your time. we will talk in a minute about moveon.org role in the midterm elections. want to show you first a little bit from the online ad describing their efforts. spent the congressional election is just weeks away. the koch brothers, a pair of extreme right wing billionaire oil barons are doing their best to america's democracy. they plan to spend an unprecedented life hundred million dollars in states across

the country to ensure their candidate take back the senate for the gop. they their 1% cash can overcome our people power. so long as the same progressive voters who powered president obama's went in 2008 and 2012 turn out and vote. >> host: ben wilker is washing director for moveon.org. tell us little bit about the ad. why was the focus on the koch brothers treachery thanks for having me on. i'm excited to talk to in your c-span viewers today. when you look at this election edge compared to 2012 or 2008 for a couple of the differences. the first is the presence elections last year than 139 people that turned out. in the midterm elections it was about 99 people. there's a huge difference. what that means if the midterm election like this it's all about who decides to go to the polls. the second thing that's happening, if the same time there's much less of interest and awareness in what's happened in this election there's a flood of dark money, up act money,

especially money from the likes of the koch brothers, often flowing through largely unrated political entities dedicated to where it's coming from that is essentially trying to convince people that their votes will not matter. the effects of negative ad is not persuasion the intensity much more voter suppression, people don't want to turnout for the polls. they're convinced, so we see as the core of this election making sure people know that their votes can actually count, there are a handful of states that will determine which party controls the senate for the next few years. is progressive voters, people voted for the president by didn't vote in 2010, if they know what's going on and it turned out, they could make the difference between a democratic or republican senate in 2015. >> host: a democratic pollster did a survey for you and she found that democrats, the headline and the "washington

post," democrats may not show up this fall because they don't know that the senate is up for grabs. >> guest: this. for folks in washington, d.c., for many c-span viewers it might hard to imagine people don't realize which party has a majority in the city. in our polling of people he didn't vote in 2010 will be fine if many people have no idea which party is in the majority in the senate. all they know is there is noise and obstruction from congress. they also don't know that the control of the senate is imbalance fiscal. the 13th they don't know is there specific state, talking about hoeffel states like iowa or colorado, their states could determine whether republicans or democrats have a majority in the senate. once people know those facts and once they know what is at stake, if republicans take over they go from being unlikely to vote to be motivated to vote. that's what they told our pollster. from our point of view this as an information problem but will it make sure that all the information they need. we're not trying to convince them this is important to we are trying to give them information

they need so they can act on their values and turnout this fall. >> host: what about the role president obama is playing? look at the number of democratic leaning people that they pulled that said that they would be sending a message of support to the president and the 2014 election. 38%. that is down from 2010 the last midterm election when it was only 5%. are you concerned the president is a drag on these midterm elections? >> guest: what we found is that people in the key senate states that will determine control of the senate, they don't look at this as a referendum on the president. the thing that is most motivating to most is a message about what will happen if republicans are in control of the senate. about whether the republicans will be up to extend the war on women, access to birth control, vote to cut education funding it and it's a win-win of another government shutdown. as all things that are fundamentally about who has the power in